Opinion
2:17-cr-00235-KJM
08-16-2022
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Edward Charles Gaston, Defendant.
ORDER
The government moves for reconsideration of this court's previous determination that defendant Edward Charles Gaston did not plead guilty to an offense punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years. See generally Prev. Order, ECF No. 134; Mot. Recons., ECF No. 136. The motion is fully briefed and the court submitted it without a hearing. See generally Opp'n, ECF No. 144; Reply, ECF No. 145.
The court held in its previous order that the government had not obtained the necessary “explicit admission” of drug type and quantity necessary under United States v. Thomas, 355 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2004), and United States v. Hunt, 656 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2011). The United States contends in its motion for reconsideration that it did in fact obtain that admission; Gaston agreed during his plea colloquy that the government could prove at trial that he sold methamphetamine of a specific purity. See, e.g., Mot. Recons. at 3-4.
The court remains persuaded that Gaston's case cannot meaningfully be distinguished from Thomas and Hunt. See Prev. Order at 8-9. In Thomas, the defendant “accepted responsibility for whatever amount of cocaine base was in the bag,” “but as far as how much it weighed or anything,” he said he “knew nothing about it.” 355 F.3d at 1194. In Hunt, the defendant “accept[ed] responsibility for whatever it was” in the package he had possessed, but “[a]s for the specific amount,” he didn't “have personal knowledge of it . . . as I never opened the package and weighed it.” 656 F.3d at 910. Mr. Gaston accepted similarly what the government alleged about the contents of the bag he had sold, Plea Tr. at 25-26, ECF No. 84, but he clarified he did not know it was “actual,” just “drugs,” id. at 22-23. If these admissions did not suffice in Thomas and Hunt, they do not suffice in this case. The motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 136) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.